Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * - - 8 votes

why so much negativity


  • Please log in to reply
185 replies to this topic

#181 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

@raspberry jam

how many areas give high rewards in gw1 especially if you just consider prophecies at launch?


Its not that easy. Skills synergize with each other (which is the whole point in both games) making the sum larger than its parts.
For example lets assume a ficticious game. We have Player Character A, who is a ranged char who has 1 attack skills, fire arrow does 10 damage and an armor that gives him 50 damage worth of defence. We have 2 NPC characters B which is also a range character, 1 attack skill that also does 10 damage and he has 100 defence. We also have a Melee NPC C, 1 attack does 20 damage, armor that has 100 defence. As things stand right now Player A is doomed.   He cant possibly win against either NPC.

He could get better armor, but even 20 extra health will not do him good.

Or we can introduce a new skill, cripple for 5 seconds.

Cripple isnt strictly speaking a better skill then his existant fire arrow, its doesnt do any damage at all. But if used against our Melee NPC C, now our player Character A can kill him before C can land even a single attack essentially turning the tables. Now unless A makes a mistake NPC C has no way of defeating A.

On the other hand our new skill does nothing against NPC B. (well maybe it allows us to escape but never mind that)

So by learning this new skill did our character progress vertically? I think so, he did become more powerful, with that 1 skill he can now defeat a foe he had no chance of defeating without that skill. So in the end which one provides the more vertical progression the +20 armor that really changes nothing or that one skill that allows victory against one of the two foes?

At the end of the day every combat boils down to 2 simple factors. How much damage you can absorb and how much damage you can deal.

Armor, Weapons, Skills, Traits, potions, what ever changes one or the other. In this very, very simplified case that new skill made so against that melee character we get infinite defense simply because it makes it impossible for the enemy to even hit us. Having it does improve our defense in this particular scenario. Which means we got more powerful (though with conditions) which implies some sort of vertical progression.

That being said, what you're saying isnt untrue either. I understand what that 8 slot limitation means. At some point you're going to reach a power plataue so to speak. A new skill combination might make you more powerful in aspect but less powerful in another. Essentially making it like you say, no better then another combination just different. This I believe also goes hand in hand on why Arenanet always claimed that balancing all those skills was a nightmare. Every combination of 8 skills provided a value to either defense or offencive capability. For it to really be horizontal each combination of 8 had to have the same overall offensive and defensive vallue. Thats really hard to do especially in cases where you cant quantify what a skill means like the example I give above. (In fact in my example that skill would require some serious nerfing like by introducing a cooldown ensuring I cant perma cripple)

However like you confirm yourself to tackle some content you need some specific skills. Not any set of 8 skills will do. That means there is an over all power disparity between some sets of 8 skills and other 8 sets of skills. So there is some vertical progression element. I could however argue against myself and say this is not necessarily true. It could simply be That the specific set of 8 skills is needed not because its is better but because it has skills targeted against the specific situation. At the end of the day I guess its likely to be a bit of both.

#182 Culture Shock

Culture Shock

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1662 posts
  • Location:In Meditation

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:56 PM

View PostKattar, on 15 December 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

You realize the OP is saying the opposite of what you're saying.

This is why forums are bad: people already have their own opinion and are convinced that they are correct. They won't listen to any kind of reason that goes contrary to their own because their reasoning is correct, so why bother listening to a different view point. Case in point, the response I just quoted.

That, coupled with poor reading comprehension and the inability to think outside our own little world makes every MMO forum crap eventually.

It's not just this community, it's all of them.

Amen Kattar,  I've often wondered how moderators like yourself remain sane without taking anti-depressants.  The number of "this game is crap" threads is almost unbearable especially considering that GW2 is NOT anywhere near one of the worst games released and not in the bottom half of the list of the top 20 MMOs on the market.  So where these posts come from has to be exactly what you are stating in your post, the minds of people who are hell bent on being negative and sharpening thier axe on every crack in the games lovely paintings.

Bottom line of my post is, GW2 is not a bad game, however looking at the number of negative threads you would think it was like the horrid E.T. for Atari 2600 released way back in the days.  For anyone who doesn't know, just watch any video on the history of video games and you will see that listed as the worst in history.

Edited by Culture Shock, 19 December 2012 - 02:58 PM.


#183 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4809 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 19 December 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

@raspberry jam

how many areas give high rewards in gw1 especially if you just consider prophecies at launch?


Its not that easy. Skills synergize with each other (which is the whole point in both games) making the sum larger than its parts.
For example lets assume a ficticious game. We have Player Character A, who is a ranged char who has 1 attack skills, fire arrow does 10 damage and an armor that gives him 50 damage worth of defence. We have 2 NPC characters B which is also a range character, 1 attack skill that also does 10 damage and he has 100 defence. We also have a Melee NPC C, 1 attack does 20 damage, armor that has 100 defence. As things stand right now Player A is doomed.   He cant possibly win against either NPC.

He could get better armor, but even 20 extra health will not do him good.

Or we can introduce a new skill, cripple for 5 seconds.

Cripple isnt strictly speaking a better skill then his existant fire arrow, its doesnt do any damage at all. But if used against our Melee NPC C, now our player Character A can kill him before C can land even a single attack essentially turning the tables. Now unless A makes a mistake NPC C has no way of defeating A.

On the other hand our new skill does nothing against NPC B. (well maybe it allows us to escape but never mind that)

So by learning this new skill did our character progress vertically? I think so, he did become more powerful, with that 1 skill he can now defeat a foe he had no chance of defeating without that skill. So in the end which one provides the more vertical progression the +20 armor that really changes nothing or that one skill that allows victory against one of the two foes?

At the end of the day every combat boils down to 2 simple factors. How much damage you can absorb and how much damage you can deal.

Armor, Weapons, Skills, Traits, potions, what ever changes one or the other. In this very, very simplified case that new skill made so against that melee character we get infinite defense simply because it makes it impossible for the enemy to even hit us. Having it does improve our defense in this particular scenario. Which means we got more powerful (though with conditions) which implies some sort of vertical progression.

That being said, what you're saying isnt untrue either. I understand what that 8 slot limitation means. At some point you're going to reach a power plataue so to speak. A new skill combination might make you more powerful in aspect but less powerful in another. Essentially making it like you say, no better then another combination just different. This I believe also goes hand in hand on why Arenanet always claimed that balancing all those skills was a nightmare. Every combination of 8 skills provided a value to either defense or offencive capability. For it to really be horizontal each combination of 8 had to have the same overall offensive and defensive vallue. Thats really hard to do especially in cases where you cant quantify what a skill means like the example I give above. (In fact in my example that skill would require some serious nerfing like by introducing a cooldown ensuring I cant perma cripple)

However like you confirm yourself to tackle some content you need some specific skills. Not any set of 8 skills will do. That means there is an over all power disparity between some sets of 8 skills and other 8 sets of skills. So there is some vertical progression element. I could however argue against myself and say this is not necessarily true. It could simply be That the specific set of 8 skills is needed not because its is better but because it has skills targeted against the specific situation. At the end of the day I guess its likely to be a bit of both.
Everything after Amnoon Oasis, I'd say. Considering that both UW and FoW were considered hard to solo farm initially. Or, hey, if you consider GW1 at release, you had stuff like W/Mo shout farming in Kryta that brought in more money than a Shadow Farmer could cram out of UW several years later.

As you say, your example is completely meaningless because it ignores the limitation. Horizontal progression always needs to include limitations like that, because otherwise they are actually vertical progression (as you point out). As before I refer to MtG where you have a 60 card minimum size of your deck, 4 identical cards max per deck... Those numbers are vitally important to balance. Not the actual numbers themselves, but the decisions that they create. If you instead change 60 to 40, you get a different distribution of randomness in the card draw which affects the balance, but the decisions that players need to take are still the same. In the same way, a 10 slot limitation in GW1 would mean the same thing as 8 slots - it would change the game, but nowhere near as much as allowing every skill to be brought at once.

ANet ran themselves into a nightmare scenario because they did not have enough self-balancing skill mechanics. I told you before and I'll tell you again, skills like Frenzy, Diversion etc. never needed to be changed very much (a little bit yes, but never completely updated). Skills on the other hand that only has a number to them and that's it, needed to be changed a lot because all they were is energy in -> healing/damage out, which means that they are subject to optimization by players.

No, some skills being better than other does not mean that it is vertical progression. It would be vertical progression if you had to use the poor skills first and then work your way up to better ones. That is the case only before you get your first elite (elites are pretty much always better than normal skills), but apart from that, it's not.

#184 Zero_Soulreaver

Zero_Soulreaver

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 393 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 19 December 2012 - 06:43 PM

It's not the "negativity" that is the problem at all, it's the way people present things that is at issue.  Most posts that are conflicting usually amount to calling someone an idiot and telling them they are playing wrong.   Instead it should be more of like "hey have you tried thing this way?"  If some people weren't acting like elitists more people would hear them out.  Funny how they bash on WoW yet do the same thing as those people they "hate".


You always have some person who swears they know everything about GW2.  Well people have been playing since the BWEs and you are no different than them. The game has changed more than 3 times since release, yet people wanna pretend they know things you don't know.

Their is no "special secret" about GW2 as people try to pretend their is, no special way to play to have fun...it's rather stupid to think so.  Even if you ask these people what they do for fun they have no answer b/c their answer is "why do I gotta answer you?!"  Well let me tell you it's nothing you haven't tried, yet some people want to act like you are intellectually inferior to them.

The "negativity" was always here, it didn't suddenly pop up. People were elitists since the start, if you don't believe me take a look back at older threads.   At the end of the day no magic "evil" patch made people this way.

#185 zabiku

zabiku

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:48 PM

You know the sad part about all this bickering and yelling at each other could've all been fixed if Anet didn't stretch out the game's content through 80 levels...and rather been smart and continued to roll with their rather risky (but very effective) decision to make the game cap 20..and then base this mass amount of content that has been stretched between 80 levels...and just designed it around flushing out a playing experience after you hit level 20...

As I've said many times before, there is a lot of negativity surrounding Guild Wars 2 because ArenaNet decided to take what wasn't broken and break it..but not just by a little bit..by a whole lot.

Edit:
I'm not saying this as a fan of Guild Wars 1, I believe that everyone's complaint about combat and overall character progression could have been set to rest if they did in fact make this game an improved sequel and not just another standed MMORPG with vertical progression but lacking the actual content to make it tolerable.

I see a lot of people saying to one another that they don't know what Vertical and Horizontal Progression means, but the real honest question you should ask...is does ArenaNet know what those two mean?

Edited by zabiku, 19 December 2012 - 10:53 PM.


#186 chrisbdrake

chrisbdrake

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 274 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:09 AM

Yeah, that's right if they had only done a few more online polls the SWTOR would have been saved, saved i tell you.  A couple online polls and in two months everything about the game would have been fixed, the multitudes would have come back and George Lucas himself would have been singing it's praises.

Sometimes a bad game is a bad game and can't be saved.  Nothing can save SWTOR because the amount of work required is too great.  The best solution is what is being done.  Keep it on life support and suck out what revenue you can.

If your interested in game design, I recommend learning how to  get useful feedback from players.  I've got news for you, polls on the internet aren't it.  Internet polls are probably the worst with skewed samples and dishonest responses.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users